To say that California leans democratic is an understatement, and the votes on progressive issues showed it. Californians voted to extend progressive tax rates, restrict ammunition sales, legalize recreational marijuana (although you can’t buy it until the state licenses distributors, so no lighting up yet!), increase the cigarette tax, repeal English-Only education, and ban plastic bags.

Here in Los Angeles, voters approved a ½ cent sales tax for improvements to public transportation (Measure M). Voters also approved a $1.2 billion dollar bond measure to facilitate the construction of up to 10,000 units of affordable housing for the city’s estimated 28,000 homeless people (Measure HHH). More money went to improve schools, community colleges, and parks.

Moreover not only do we have a Democratic Governor, but according to the Los Angeles Times, voters elected a two-thirds super-majority of Democrats to the state Assembly, and pending one more district’s vote count, the state’s Senate as well.

What does this mean for employers in the Golden State? Well, it almost assuredly means progressive employment laws on both the state and local levels will not only remain, but may even increase to keep California in its trend-setting position. At last count, seven cities have enacted their own paid sick leave ordinances to supplement the three day minimum provided under state law. State and local organized labor activity remains strong, as shown by its influence on the state’s minimum wage increase and local ordinances like the LA Hotel Minimum Wage Ordinance. While rumor has it that the NLRB will ultimately turn more pro-business in a Republican administration, and perhaps even put the break on some key pro-labor initiatives (such as micro-units, the Persuader Rule, and maybe even its assault on class action waivers in arbitration agreements as a violation of Section 7 rights), changes on the state and local level are unlikely (at least in the short term).

So while the national post-election map looks very red, California remains very blue — as do its employment policies — and as are the majority of its voters.

Here’s your annual roundup of new California employment laws. Since we’ve discussed many of these laws when they were enacted, I’m including links to those earlier discussions.

Changes to California’s Fair Pay Act – When it took effect at the start of 2016, the Fair Pay Act was the most exacting equal pay law in the country. Effective January 1, 2017, following the passage of SB 1063 and AB 1676, it’s expanding significantly. First, the requirement of equal pay for substantially similar work is expanding beyond gender to include race and ethnicity. Second, AB 1676 amended the Labor Code to emphasize that “prior salary shall not, by itself, justify any disparity in compensation.”

“All Gender” Bathroom Bill – Effective March 1, 2017, businesses are prohibited from labeling any “single-user toilet facility” as either “male” or “female.” AB 1732 defines “single-user toilet facility” as “a toilet facility with no more than one water closet and one urinal with a locking mechanism controlled by the user.”

Prohibition against asking applicants about juvenile convictions – AB 1843 prohibits employers from asking about or considering information relating to arrests, convictions, or other proceedings that occurred while an applicant or employee “was subject to the process and jurisdiction of juvenile court law.”

We’ve written throughout the year about new employment laws that take effect in California in 2016. But as the year winds down, here’s a handy list of the most significant ones (with links to our earlier entries). Unless noted otherwise, the laws take effect on January 1, 2016.

California’s Fair Pay Act (SB 358; Labor Code § 1197.5): Where existing law requires that men and women working at the same location receive equal pay for equal work, the new law requires that they receive equal pay for substantially similar work (whatever that means) even if they work in different locations. In addition, if there are disparities, the burden is on the employer to show that the entire disparity is justified by such factors as education, training, and experience. Systems that base compensation on seniority, merit, and production are also acceptable. This one has the potential to open the proverbial floodgates of litigation. You can read more here.

Restrictions on E-Verify Use (AB 622; Labor Code § 2814): U.S. employers must verify that the workers they hire are authorized to work in this country. But this new statute restricts their ability to use the E-Verify system to do so. Unless required by federal law or as a condition of receiving federal funds, employers can only check the status of applicants who’ve received an offer but have yet to start work. In addition, the employer needs to notify the workers promptly if the E-Verify system doesn’t confirm that they are authorized to work in the U.S. You can read more here.

New Minimum Compensation for Exempt Computer Software Professionals (Labor Code § 515.5): Effective January 1, 2016, for computer software professionals to be considered exempt, they must (among other things) be paid a minimum of $41.85 per hour or $87,185.14 per year. You can read more here.

Scaling Back Certain PAGA Claims (AB 1506; Labor Code §§ 2699, 2699.3, and 2699.5): California’s Private Attorneys General Act (or PAGA) allows private employees to sue to recover penalties that the state labor commissioner could have collected. Under the new law, an employer would have an opportunity to cure a PAGA violation based on failure to include the beginning and end dates of the pay period and the employer’s proper name and address. This one took effect October 2, 2015. You can read more here.

Expansion of Individual Liability for Wage Violations (SB 588; Labor Code §§ 690.020 et seq.): The benignly named “A Fair Day’s Pay Act“ purportedly intends to help employees who can’t collect judgments because their employers change their names or hide their assets. But the bill isn’t limited to those situations. It allows the Labor Commissioner to conduct hearings to determine whether a “person acting on behalf of an employer” should be held personally liable for an employer’s violations. The Labor Commissioner would also be able to levy those individuals’ accounts or property to enforce a judgment and seek payment from successor employers under criteria that are entirely too vague to understand or apply. You can read more here.

Removal of the Term “Alien” from the Labor Code (SB 432): Other than removing a term from a statute that causes offense, this is a mostly symbolic gesture. You can read more here.

Clarification of Paid Sick Leave Requirements (AB 304): This bill, which took effect in July, clarifies how to calculate the rate of pay for purposes of paid sick leave. You can read more here.

Meal Periods for Healthcare Workers Who Work More than 12 Hours (SB 237; Labor Code § 516): This bill maintained the status quo by abrogating the holding of Gerard v. Orange Coast Memorial Medical Center. You can read more here.

Protection for employees when a relative working for the same employer engages in protected activity (AB 1509). Under this law, if a married couple is working for the same employer, and the husband complains of discrimination, that’s not a legal basis to take action against the wife.

Protection for Requesting Accommodation (AB 987): This bill amended the Fair Employment and Housing Act to clarify that employers can’t retaliate against employees for requesting accommodation for a disability or religious observance. (I thought that was pretty clear before.)

Takeaway: The burdens on operating in California continue to become more onerous. As a result, it becomes increasingly important for employers to be proactive in determining before they get sued where they’re vulnerable. In terms of time, expense, stress, disruption, and damage to a company’s reputation, an audit of HR practices is way cheaper than a lawsuit.

We’ve written throughout the year about new employment laws that take effect in California in 2015. But as the year winds down, here’s a handy list of the most significant ones (with links to our earlier entries).

Many California employers will be required to provide Paid Sick Leave starting July 1, 2015. We wrote about the law generally here, about some specific challenges it imposes here, and about how it compares to a similar law in effect in San Francisco here. [Update: November 24, 2014: The DLSE has issued a new notice to post by January 1, 2014. Download it here.]

California Labor Code § 2810.3 will require businesses to automatically share liability with a “labor contractor,” such as a temporary staffing agency, if the agency fails to pay wages or provide workers’ compensation insurance to its employees who are assigned to work at the business.

Expanding the definition of “national origin” under the Fair Employment and Housing Act to include the circumstances under which someone got their driver’s license (i.e. if they got a type of license provided to undocumented workers).

AB 2617 prohibits mandatory arbitration agreements from including claims for violations of certain civil code sections dealing with violence or threats of violence based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation or political affiliation. It seems to us to be a clear violation of the Federal Arbitration Act, but California courts and legislatures have been fighting that battle for years.

AB 326 – Sometimes technology advances more quickly than legislation. Employers must report workplace deaths or serious illnesses or injuries to Cal OSHA immediately. That’s not changing. But where the old law says the reports must be made by telephone or telegraph, the new law says by telephone or e-mail. Who knew that the job outlook for telegraph operators could get any bleaker?

New minimum wages in San Francisco ($11.05 effective January 1, 2015), Oakland ($12.25 effective March 2, 2015), San Jose ($10.30 effective January 1, 2015), San Diego ($9.75 effective January 1, 2015), and hotels within the City of Los Angeles ($15.37 effective July 1, 2015 or July 1, 2016, depending on the number of hotel rooms).

Train managers to understand that certain issues, such as requests to accommodate a disability, leave requests, deciding who’s exempt from overtime requirements, etc., should be escalated to someone with specialized knowledge;

We’ve written about many of the new employment laws that take effect in California in 2014. But as the year winds down, here’s a handy-dandy list of the most significant ones (with links to our earlier entries).

Expanding paid family leave rights – Like State Disability Insurance, Paid Family Leave is paid for with deductions from employees’ paychecks. When enacted, the law provided up to six weeks of wage replacement benefits to workers who took time off to care for a seriously ill child, spouse, parent, or domestic partner, or to bond with a newborn or a child recently placed through adoption or foster care. Now those rights will extend to workers who need time to care for siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, and parents-in-law. And while we’re on the topic, San Francisco employers need to also pay attention to San Francisco’s new Family Friendly Workplace Ordinance.

Increasing the state minimum wage – Currently $8 per hour, it goes up to $9 on July 1, 2014 and $10 on January 1, 2016. This affects not only nonexempt workers, but also those working under the administrative, professional, and executive exemptions in California (who must earn a salary equivalent to at least two times the state minimum wage for full-time employment to qaulify for the exemption).

Expanded definition of sexual harassment – This new law states that sexual harassment doesn’t have to be motivated by sexual desire. No case or statute said otherwise, but the legislature saw fit to unanimously pass a law saying what sexual harassment isn’t. This will only cause confusion for courts and juries trying to determine what sexual harassment is.

New protections for crime victims – SB 400 takes existing laws that prohibit discrimination against victims of domestic violence or sexual assault and expands them to include stalking victims. It also requires employers to reasonably accommodate (which may include taking safety measures) victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking. In addition, SB 288 prohibits discrimination against victims of specified felonies (including child abuse, domestic violence, physical abuse of the elderly or a dependent adults, sexual assault, and solicitation for murder) and requires that they be given time off to appear in court.

New protections for immigrants – Thinking about reporting an employee who complained about Labor Code violations to Immigration and Customs Enforcement? Bad idea! Under AB 263, that’s an “unfair immigration-related practices.” Well what if you just threaten to report him? Another bad idea! (Seriously, where do you come up with these?) Employers who do that can lose their business licenses (pursuant to SB 666) and be charged with criminal extortion (pursuant to AB 524)

While we wait to learn which employment laws are being taken off the books to make room for these new ones (as if), here are steps employers can take to better protect themselves:

Make sure personnel policies and handbooks are up to date (including the lists of categories protected from discrimination);

Train managers to understand the various types of leave available to California employees (or at least to refer inquiries to someone knowledgeable);

Regarding the expanding definition of sexual harassment:

Ensure that personnel policies prohibit not just harassment, but also vulgar language, sexual innuendo, sexual propositions, threats, and bullying.

Be vigilant in enforcing those policies.

Respond to complaints of bullying, crude behavior, and mistreatment that aren’t necessarily “because of sex” as you would to a sexual harassment complaint. This means you need to conduct (or have someone qualified conduct) a prompt, fair, and thorough investigation and, where necessary, take steps reasonably calculated to stop the behavior.

Most importantly, continue following our widely praised blog for further updates on California employment law!

My colleagues and I have written about many of the new employment laws that take effect in California in 2012. But so you don’t have to dig around, here’s a handy-dandy list of the most significant ones (with links to our earlier entries).

AB 22 — which restricts use of consumer credit reports. Read about it here.

SB 459 — imposing new penalties for misclassifying employees as independent contractors. Read about it here.

AB 887 — formalizing the prohibition against discrimination based on gender identity and gender expression. Read about it here.

AB 469 — the dramatically named Wage Theft Protection Act requires employers to give newly hired non-exempt, non-union employees a notice with information regarding wages and pay practices. Specifically, this notice must include the rate or rates of pay, the basis on which the wages are to be calculated (such as hourly, piece rate, commission, etc.), the applicable overtime rates, the designated regular pay day, and the name and mailing address of the employer. Employers must also notify employees within seven days of any changes to this information. The law includes new penalties, as well, and increases the statute of limitations for the DLSE to collect statutory penalties from one to three years. [Read an important update on this statute here.]

New Wage Requirements for Computer Professionals and Physicians to Be Exempt — to qualify as exempt under California law, certain computer professionals and licensed physicians must earn above a specified level. Effective January 1, computer professionals must earn either $38.89/hr, $6,752.19/mo, or $81,026.25/yr. Licensed physicians must earn at least $70.86/hr.

SB 559 — prohibiting discrimination based on genetic information. Read about it here.

SB 117 — requiring businesses with contracts with the state of California for more than $100,000 to provide equal benefits for an employee’s same-sex spouse or registered domestic partner.

About Our Firm

Fox Rothschild LLP is a national law firm with 800 attorneys practicing in 22 offices coast to coast. We’ve been serving clients for more than a century, and we’ve been climbing the ranks of the nation’s largest firms for many years, according to both The Am Law 100 and The National Law Journal.Read More...